RoR: Forum

Great article, Ed!

I especially liked this bombshell statement:

Rawls is rebelling against reality, nature, and the existence of human talent. A natural fact, such as the existence of one’s talents, is neither just nor unjust—it just is. So why should those “favored by nature” be made to pay for what is not a moral problem or an injustice and is not of his or her own making?

and, your closing statemtent:

Rawls’ theory can be challenged on the grounds that he is confusing justice with prudence—the virtue of advancing one’s own well-being. To be prudent is to apply intelligence to changing circumstances. Rawls’ maxi-min strategy appears to be a rational construction of prudence rather than of justice. A prudent man in the “original position” might choose a social structure under which he would be “least worse off” if things went badly for him. Such a choice could be called prudent, but certainly not just.

The bombshell statement (first one above) strikes at the heart of Rawls' marred reasoning. It shows how he draws a conclusion from a false premise (that egalitarianism is an intrinsic good; and that reality "sins" against it; and therefore, that man ought to try to force retributive justice onto this "sin" of nature--punishing man for nature's "faults").

The closing statement hammers home a great message. Rawls' "veil of ignorance" does not compel men such as me (we would choose capitalism under that very same "veil"). Accepting moral responsibility for my own happiness, I'd want the scenario that best rewards virtue. Rewarding virtue is possibly the most important action that man can take in order to flourish on this planet--yet Rawls' would probably only sneer in self-fashioned ignorance at this pivotal point.

Rawls' "veil" only compels those that live in avoidance of all pain--including the growing pain involved in building virtue, building riches, building loving relationships, etc. It is no wonder that many spiritually-misdirected contemporary professional philosophers (who curse the dark, but don't raise a finger in order to light a candle) have signed on to his "easy fix" of the problem of diversified talents.

Ed, thanks for writing this important, well-worded essay of a problematic, contemporary pitfall in both ethics and politics

Ed Thompson

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/21, 7:49pm)

Post 1

Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 8:49pm

Ed, every day I see Rawls's influence writ large in the philosophy and politics of my university campus and classmates. Thanks for this devastating critique, it has been forwarded to some especially "needy" friends of mine.

Post 2

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 3:30pm

Ed:

Thanks for your thoughtful response to this essay! You certainly reinforced that points I was making!!!!

Andrew:

I am pleased that you sent the essay on to some others! All we can do is try to educate and persuade.

Cheers!!!!

Ed

Post 3

Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 5:26am

Rawls hypothesizes a perfect state of non-bias, behind a 'veil of ignorance' of future outcomes, from which to make an 'initial choice'-- a land where none of us mere mortals can actually travel to...

... and then Rawls himself jarringly travels there and safely returns with the unsurprising news that the denizens of said land choose the politics of Rawls and his.

Also known as, the oldest carny huckster trick in the book: the imagining of an authority safely beyond the horizon that yet requires a politico to lift his leg and speak for it.

God, "S"ociety, Social Justice, The Infinitely Malleable Social Contract, a perfect state on non-bias, the spirit that lives under the volcano, The Commerce Clause...

How long is mankind going to keep falling for these carny huckster tricks?

Who is it, exactly, that falls for that schtick?

If it is truly 'blind justice'... then how does he manage to peek at the answer to tip the scales?

In what universe is this called 'logic?'

Post 4

Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 5:39am

Rawls describes his theory as political rather than metaphysical—it is political in the sense that it does not depend on any of the metaphysical assumptions that are disputed among reasonable citizens in a pluralistic society.

Politics: the art and science of getting what we want from other people using every means short of actual force or violence(hence the same root as 'polite.'

Of course his theory is 'political.' It is primarily about what he wants from other people. And what makes 'what we want from other people' so special?

Politics is not defined by "that which does not depend on any of the metaphysical assumptions that are disputed among reasonable citizens in a pluralistic society," just as "reasonable" is not defined by "folks who agree with Rawls and his." That use of 'reasonable' is a dead give away that there is unqualified leg lifting going on. It is a certain tell for paternalistic megalomania.

Politicians (those concerned first and foremost with what they want from other people)hide behind the 'veil of ignorance' -- when it comes to defining the word 'politics' -- like it was an invisible shield, a cloak granting them carte blanche to mean all things to all people, a kind of universal solvent that lets them slip unchallenged into the lives of those they ... seek things from.

The way to stop a politician from slipping his grubbing hands all over and into your life is to know -exactly- what the definition of politics is, and to point out that fact to them when they are begging their political arguments at you.

And yet, if the root of politics is 'polite' as in, devoid of force or violence, then how can it be said that Rawls argument is 'political' when it is used as justification for state force to implement his precious worldview for him?

Where it is used as an argument to ask, no problem.

Where it is used as an argument to tell, then otherwise.
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 5/22, 5:42am)

Post 5

Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 8:39am

Fred, post #3 of yours is just brilliant in cutting right to the fundamental hucksterism of so many arguments. There should be class taught in every high school and college entitled, "How to tell when someone is pissing on you"

Post 6

Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 10:33am

Steve:

Which is more unsettling?

1] We have a POTUS for whom Rawls' schtick is deeply, fundamentally influential.

2] We have a POTUS who has so much contempt for America that he believes we would largely fall for such nonsense.

I'd call that a toss-up.

regards,
Fred

Post 7

Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 11:30am

Fred,

I can't really pick. Obama is so devious, and so addicted to dishonest campaigning rhetoric that it is hard to tell his deepest motivations (other than to see that they involve a strong dislike for the America of today... or of yesteryear).

I'm sure that he believes much of what he got at Harvard/Columbia/etc, and that he uses some of the other stuff because he has no respect for his audience and thinks they'll keep on buying it.

So, I guess it's the worst kind of toss-up, in that it is some of both, and we probably don't know the worst of his motivations - not even at this late date.

Post 8

Tuesday, July 3, 2012 - 11:52pm

For Rawls, man clings to man like a frightened child. He's got to be the whiniest altruist I've come across.

Post 9

Friday, July 6, 2012 - 6:08pm

"Who is it, exactly, that falls for that schtick?"

The "Philosopher Kings".

Post 10

Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 12:34pm

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/not-a-black-white-world/

apparently john rawls contributed to our understanding of a free society. The author had this to say:

"I'm not defending Rawls's whole project, just pointing out, that parts of it are helpful in the cause of liberty. One of those is the fact that he put discussions of justice back on the map again in a way that enabled Nozick to do what he did. Plus the veil of ignorance idea was praised by both Hayek and Buchanan."
(Edited by Michael Philip on 8/16, 12:39pm)

Post 11

Thursday, August 16, 2012 - 5:03pm

Michael:

Something I've never understood about the brilliance of that 'veil of ignorance:'

How do mere real humans pierce it, in order to travel behind it and tell us (with authority, no less) what goes on behind that 'veil of ignorance?'

See, it is 'blind justice' but ... Rawls manages to be able to peek through all that blindness and tell us what is there. That is some slick carny huckster trick! He should be applauded for ... pulling it off. But he wasn't the first. (Kant, who should properly be called Kan, asserts with authority that there exists a difference between a thing and itself that we cannot correctly perceive. Now, how Kant manages to see this difference in order to authoritatively assert that it exists as a difference without correctly perceiving it is left for the folks to figure out long after the carnival is over but rest assured, it is there, trust him. The proper response to Kant is to pretend not to notice that his purpose is to kick your intellectual legs out from under you. What you are supposed to think is 'this is deep so he must be right...')

Here is me praising the 'veil of ignorance.' (There was one of these in the Wizard of Oz, memorably.)

Imagine a 'veil of ignorance' behind which mankind exists in a perfect state of unbias, a perfect state from which to state our 'initial position' unbiased by our eventual outcomes. What a powerful and moral and ethical authority such a state is!

Travel with me(on my Magic Carpet-- I borrowed it from Rawls)as a fellow mere human to pierce that 'veil of ignorance' and poll the denizens who live in that authoritative state; help me conduct the following poll:

"With no knowledge of eventual outcomes, would you prefer to live under a model of free association in a nation of peers with a state empowered only to defend free association and inhibit forced association of all manner, including ans especially by itself except in enforcment of this axiom, or to live under a model of forced association under the rule of crony elites, who shall decree what are the latest really good causes for directing forced association based only on the political whims of the current roaming bare 51% political majority fettered by no axiom other than the brute force of numbers?"

Indeed, what would 'rational' people choose from that authoritative perfect state of non-bias?

I can see why Rawls was lauded for this carny huckster trick; it's a safe and powerful authority, conveniently tucked away where none of us mere mortals can actually travel to in order to conduct our hypothetical polls and leg lift our political arguments with safely hypothesized authority ticked away far over the horizon, untouchable and unimpeachable and yet, jarringly, requiring some giftged subsets of humans to yet travel there and touch and even speak for the authority found there...

... just like every other politico carny huckster through the ages.

God, "S"ociety, the consciousness of consciousness, the collective unconsciousness, the Social Contract, the Common Good, The Greater Good, and why not, the perfect state of non-bias behind a 'veil of ignorance' -- all rent-able to we were humans to speak for with authority.

regards,
Fred

Post 12

Saturday, August 25, 2012 - 2:29pm

Fred,

"With no knowledge of eventual outcomes, would you prefer to live under a model of free association in a nation of peers with a state empowered only to defend free association and inhibit forced association of all manner, including an[d] especially by itself except in enforc[e]ment of this axiom, or to live under a model of forced association under the rule of crony elites, who shall decree what are the latest really good causes for directing forced association based only on the political whims of the current roaming bare 51% political majority fettered by no axiom other than the brute force of numbers?"

Ummmmmmm ... I'll take the former.

Nicely constructed "veil of ignorance", by the way. Now we have what we needed in the first place: the competition of the rival veils.

:-)

Ed

Post 13

Saturday, August 25, 2012 - 3:48pm

Ed:

But see, there is no competetion of the veils; Rawls came back from his Magic Carpet ride and with authority told us all that everyone in that land chose slavery to the state, as long as it was for a really, really good cause: his.

Now, all you and I need to do is not laugh at him.

regards,
Fred

Post 14

Saturday, August 25, 2012 - 6:04pm

Fred,

Yeah. In fact, I've come to notice that a whole lot of what it is that passes for "utilitarianism" (a so-called greatest good for a so-called greatest number) is actually just the illegitimate rationalization of someone's subjective whims. Rawls' ethics/morality is utilitarian and so is de facto subject to the suspicion of possibly being just his sentimental feelings, dressed up in rhetoric in order to make it palatable to the masses.

Ed

Post 15

Friday, November 23, 2012 - 3:09pm

allow me to play the devil's advocate here:

my understanding of Rawls is that his difference principle is supported by game theory.

Rational agents would choose the society that maximizes their chances at a minimal standard of living rather than risking the chance of losing the lottery and getting a terribly poor and miserable place in society (even though there is also the chance of winning big).

Also he does not say that people don't contribute to their own success. However, it is undeniable that persons are not 100% responsible for it either. Some of it has to do with natural ability (which no one has any real control over), some of it also had to do with the initial conditions under which they were born (again, something no one has any control of at all), and some of it has to do with cooperation and dependence on others (some of which you have control over as a cooperating participant, but again, of which you have only somewhat control over, i.e., how you act in your circumstances).

(Edited by Michael Philip on 11/23, 4:31pm)

Post 16

Saturday, November 24, 2012 - 4:27am

One could graft game theory onto Rawl's theory of justice, but I don't believe Rawls himself based his theory on game theory. He was a Kantian and very against utilitarianism. There is no mention of game theory in Younkins' review, and "game theory" doesn't appear in Rawl's book using the "Look Inside" feature on Amazon. Also, see here.
(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 11/24, 4:33am)

Post 17

Saturday, November 24, 2012 - 12:23pm

Michael,

Rational agents would choose the society that maximizes their chances at a minimal standard of living rather than risking the chance of losing the lottery and getting a terribly poor and miserable place in society (even though there is also the chance of winning big).

But you have to differentiate classical or traditional game theory from newer and refined (evolved, improved) game theory. Keeping all of the assumptions attributed to the classical game theory that was launched in 1944 by Von Neumann & Morgenstern would be a mistake. What you are describing is the MaxiMin principle: That interacting agents will act so as to maximize their minimum payoff. This assumption has not been borne out by empirical studies.

Ed

Further:
Game Theory Evolving, 2nd Ed., Princeton, by Herbert Gintis

Post 18

Saturday, November 24, 2012 - 1:34pm

Michael:

my understanding of Rawls is that his difference principle is supported by game theory.

Rational agents would choose the society that maximizes their chances at a minimal standard of living rather than risking the chance of losing the lottery and getting a terribly poor and miserable place in society (even though there is also the chance of winning big).

Only if we allow Rawls to call the outcome of the game without actually playing it; he set up his offense and ran it against no defense; of course he's going to score.

Not in any real game; in a real game 'rational agents' are given the full information of what the price of that choice is: life under a model of forced association dictated by tyrants over the horizon vs. life under a model of free association.

Now, re-ask what 'rational agents' would choose...

If game theory is setting up tin men and knocking them down, then Rawls is a master of the tin man universe.

regards,
Fred

Post 19

Saturday, November 24, 2012 - 2:03pm